Curtain falls on quality

An argument in praise of Ebert, Siskel and Co.

August 17, 2008|By Christopher Borrelli, Tribune reporter

This weekend, when Roger Ebert severs ties with the nationally syndicated movie review show that had been his broadcast pulpit for most of its 33 years, when jumpy Richard Roeper (who replaced lanky Gene Siskel in 2000) bids adieu to the sacred cultural trust he inherited, when those infamous thumbs (the most feared stubs of flesh west of Chicago) are wheeled back into their missile silos, when "At the Movies" is formally disassociated from the men who became synonymous with film criticism itself, and that (sorry, Roger) Godforsaken sunshiny-day sitcom-esque theme music is euthanized, the informed movie review can be placed officially on the endangered species list.

On TV, let's just declare it extinct.

At the moment. Not that smart film criticism ever really flourished on television. Even in 1975, the format that Siskel and Ebert and producer Thea Flaum adopted (serious conversation about the arts, with clips, awkward hair) seemed as anachronistic as Dick Cavett's afternoon talk show, which had gone under six years earlier. The launch pad was staid (Chicago public television WTTW), the original title was ungainly ("Opening Soon at a Theater Near You"), the hosts seemed like a preview of your 20-year high school reunion (thin and bald, fat and short, sweater vests). And yet, it worked.

Across four decades, copycats came and went. But the initial formula, with its giant journalistic glasses, thinly veiled defensiveness and Chicago backdrop, proved easy and engaging. It was cozy, not fussy; you could even argue it was a tad simplistic, reductive (and many in the critical community said it loudly). More important, though, it was a hand cupped in front of the face, shielding hype. Siskel and Ebert said what they felt, and you never doubted their sincerity or honesty. Even today -- especially today -- this remains a radical idea. What Siskel and Ebert created is still the closest that television criticism has ever come to former New Yorker writer Pauline Kael's insistence that "the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising."

Call it an early forerunner to millennial snark in place of thoughtful commentary, but I'll never forget Siskel admonishing Charlie Sheen for wasting his time in some throwaway "Heidi" movie. Couldn't he afford his own ski trip to the Alps, Siskel wondered aloud? And of course there was Siskel's often-quoted (quite reliable) method for deciding if a movie was worth your time: Would a film of the same cast and crew talking over lunch be more interesting than the film they made? Glib, perhaps. But a relatable critical gateway for the moviegoer uncertain of how he or she should be talking about movies -- first, acknowledge what you're really thinking about when you're thinking about movies. Be true to your thoughts -- regardless of aesthetics or film history. Then consider intellect, the screenplay, the directing, the Robert Altman.

It's a fairly obvious idea, that film criticism resides in everyone, that we are all film critics of a sort, and the snarkiest comment about bloated salaries or bad makeup or an actor's age might have validity. But if you weren't reading The New York Times or The New Yorker -- basically, if you were getting most of your film criticism from television -- this idea that arts criticism needn't be weighted down in theory, that your free-association was worth mentioning, had the weight of revelation.

By all accounts, Disney-ABC Domestic Television, which owns "At the Movies," is headed in a snazzier, more stylized direction. Expect more celebrity too. Ebert pointed to the format change as his reason for walking away, though his health problems and inability to speak -- he hasn't been on the show in two years -- made that departure inevitable. (Also, expect more than a few new shows to revive the tried-and-true format; for starters, WTTW is rumored to be working on a round-table review show.) That said, it's also impossible to imagine a media megalith such as Disney-ABC retooling anything in 2008 that would embrace the charmingly straightforward, level-headed PBS sensibility of "At the Movies." I mean, these guys, these ink-stained wretches who knew their stuff and honed their arguments toiling at dead-tree media, they listened to each other (rarely foaming at the mouths), and they sat (rarely stood). And that set, oh my, that faux balcony -- it had carpeting! With a pattern!